ArticlePloS one2014
Mining TCGA data using Boolean implications.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring cancer driving force of chromosomal aberrations through multi-layer Boolean implication networks.PloS one · 2024Article
- Review
- Systematic identification of novel cancer genes through analysis of deep shRNA perturbation screens.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- Systematic discovery of mutation-specific synthetic lethals by mining pan-cancer human primary tumor data.Nature communications · 2017Article
- Relational Network for Knowledge Discovery through Heterogeneous Biomedical and Clinical Features.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Mutant WT1 is associated with DNA hypermethylation of PRC2 targets in AML and responds to EZH2 inhibition.Blood · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Boolean implications (if-then rules) provide a conceptually simple, uniform and highly scalable way to find associations between pairs of random variables. In this paper, we propose to use Boolean implications to find relationships between variables of different data types (mutation, copy number alteration, DNA methylation and gene expression) from the glioblastoma (GBM) and ovarian serous cystadenoma (OV) data sets from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We find hundreds of thousands of Boolean implications from these data sets. A direct comparison of the relationships found by Boolean implications and those found by commonly used methods for mining associations show that existing methods would miss relationships found by Boolean implications. Furthermore, many relationships exposed by Boolean implications reflect important aspects of cancer biology. Examples of our findings include cis relationships between copy number alteration, DNA methylation and expression of genes, a new hierarchy of mutations and recurrent copy number alterations, loss-of-heterozygosity of well-known tumor suppressors, and the hypermethylation phenotype associated with IDH1 mutations in GBM. The Boolean implication results used in the paper can be accessed at http://crookneck.stanford.edu/microarray/TCGANetworks/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.